Honestly: is 41 too old to have a baby?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, it is not. I live in another major metroplotian area now and my kids attend private school where the average age for a last baby is probably 40 for the mom and early 40s for the dad. There are many families with onlies because they started very late... But there are also many families with 3-4 kids where both parents were in their late 40s/early 50s when their youngest started K with ours. One of the many advantages of having children later is that you can afford them: you can afford to stay home and/or have help, activities, pay for excellent education etc. A major downside is the risk for genetic abnormalities, but if you are open to CVS/amnio and termination, you will be able to test for over 200 of the most common abnormalities - still pretty low, even over 40 - incl. all 23 chromosomes for potential duplications and deletions. I did that with all of my pregnancies in my late 30s and early 40s. Zero bleeding, cramping or complications after the procedures.

You left out the most obvious disadvantage: the high risk that you either won't be around to see them or your grandkids grow up, and the real risk that you'll be a serious burden on their young adulthood as you age. There's no sugarcoating it: you're really not meant to have kids so late.

Richer people live longer on average. It's unfair but true. If the pp is financially well off, it is likely that she will live well into her 80s.

[Anonymous]

I'm surprised anyone wants to have kids in this state of the world. I sure wouldn't do it at 40.

[Anonymous]

My great grandmother had her youngest at 41. It was her second marriage, and she lived 50 more years. I say go for it if you are so inclined, and if you can.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, it is not. I live in another major metroplotian area now and my kids attend private school where the average age for a last baby is probably 40 for the mom and early 40s for the dad. There are many families with onlies because they started very late... But there are also many families with 3-4 kids where both parents were in their late 40s/early 50s when their youngest started K with ours. One of the many advantages of having children later is that you can afford them: you can afford to stay home and/or have help, activities, pay for excellent education etc. A major downside is the risk for genetic abnormalities, but if you are open to CVS/amnio and termination, you will be able to test for over 200 of the most common abnormalities - still pretty low, even over 40 - incl. all 23 chromosomes for potential duplications and deletions. I did that with all of my pregnancies in my late 30s and early 40s. Zero bleeding, cramping or complications after the procedures.

You left out the most obvious disadvantage: the high risk that you either won't be around to see them or your grandkids grow up, and the real risk that you'll be a serious burden on their young adulthood as you age. There's no sugarcoating it: you're really not meant to have kids so late.

Richer people live longer on average. It's unfair but true. If the pp is financially well off, it is likely that she will live well into her 80s.

In my family, almost everyone (4 generations back) has lived until their late 80s, and about a 3rd until their mid 90s. My family was not rich; my husband and had/have great careers and did well financially, which is part of the reason why we had our kids late. While being around to see grandkids and not burdening our kids with our old age and deaths would be ideal, it's not a must or a huge downside imo. My husband and I see our parents once per year, sometimes not even. We are both European living in the US now, and we are just not super close with our parents. We have been and continue to save for retirement and old age so our care doesn't fall on our kids. We might end up retiring in Europe, where life is way cheaper and easier for the elderly, and where we have a lot of extended family and friends.